Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 26, 2016, 09:17:34 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 661
26  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sanders campaign: Clinton won only states where we didn't compete on: March 28, 2016, 03:57:21 pm
Quote
Of course her gender is an issue, it's a part of who she is. If sexism weren't an issue, she wouldn't be running as the first female president in a country where women are half the population. We'd have women as well represented as men in the top echelons of the party/movement. We just disagree on this.
Actually, I totally believe that we should have a woman president and that it would be a good thing, in fact, that would be one good thing about voting for her; but that is obviously not my point. What she and Albright have specifically said on the issue, and that people are ignoring the huge differences between the two candidates is what bothers me. Would Sanders be any weaker on issues important to blacks or women? Of course not; he would better, in my opinion. Clinton stated that she is not part of the establishment because she is a woman. Albright has demonized women who don't vote for Clinton. Obviously it is wrong to vote for a woman because she is a woman even if you don't agree with her positions. I didn't vote for Palin and I wouldn't vote for Fiorina, and I don't feel that Clinton's gender is a very good reason to vote for, especially when there are women out there who are much better. Obviously I wouldn't have a problem with Warren, had she run. I am glad that the Democrats are pushing for full equality. Ferraro and Pelosi were as close as we have come. It would be a step forward to have a woman as POTUS, but we don't want the wrong woman. Considering that Sanders is more in tune with the progressive wing of the party, and it would be a mistake to support someone because having a woman president is a good idea. I was glad to see Obama get elected, but we haven't solved racial issues in this country just because he happened to be black and we aren't going to solve gender issues in this country simply by virtue of having a female POTUS.

Fortunately Albright is not on the ballot, or a major part of Hillary's campaign in any way. And anyone who thinks she meant her comment literally is absurd.

Clinton is definitely not a part of the establishment with respect to her being a woman. One of the things that bothers me when the Sanders people call her 'establishment' or 'business as usual' is that in this aspect, she most definitely would not be.

No one supports Clinton solely because she is a woman, but her being a woman is still an important plus. Whether it's a tie breaker for you depends on how important you view breaking down that barrier compared to the net total of other issues. FWIW, I don't think Sanders is running a issues-based campaign, either. He's running a personality-based campaign, based on the notion that he's more honest than her. And a lot of his supporters are supporting him solely due to that.

IMO Hillary was right about Assad and if he had been taken out in 2011 there would have been no ISIS, while Libya was an understandable humanitarian intervention, and the country is still better off than Syria.
27  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sanders campaign: Clinton won only states where we didn't compete on: March 28, 2016, 03:09:28 pm
Quote
No one is voting for her simply because she is a woman unless they would also vote for Fiorina and Palin. They are women too, aren't they? The number of people I know who would vote for all three is zero.

And unless Sanders will implement a nationwide $15 minimum wage by executive order upon assuming office, there is no difference between him and Clinton on minimum wage.
Yes, I do believe that Fiorina and Palin are, in fact, women. Smiley

They also made a big deal of this. Why on earth do you think McCain picked Palin in the first place. Yes, of course, there are few people who would vote for any woman, but I am not talking about the general election, I am talking about primaries, and we can argue until pigs fly as to whether this is a factor or not in why people are supporting Clinton, but the reality is that she has made her gender an issue. She has played the gender card and Albright has played the gender card from the bottom of the deck. It is politics at its worst.

As for the policy differences, if nothing get passed by Congress, then what good would Clinton do as POTUS? Clearly one major difference between the two is foreign policy. The POTUS is very powerful in what s/he can do. We know on this issue Clinton is far to the right.

Of course her gender is an issue, it's a part of who she is. If sexism weren't an issue, she wouldn't be running as the first female president in a country where women are half the population. We'd have women as well represented as men in the top echelons of the party/movement. We just disagree on this.

Quote
Clearly one major difference between the two is foreign policy.

Yes, she has far more experience and knowledge of foreign policy.
28  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sanders campaign: Clinton won only states where we didn't compete on: March 28, 2016, 02:25:32 pm
I think that a lot of people are voting for Mrs. Clinton simply because she is a woman.
She has made that a campaign issue.

Yeah, I had to take down my Carly Fiorina sign before I could switch to Hillary /s
Thank you for making my point for me. She has made this an issue and women are a group that she is appealing to. Nobody can deny this. She is playing the gender card. People do vote on personality rather than on policy. Of course, I don't think this is the way to vote, but some people do. Fioriana and Palin are examples of this. There are limits. People don't tend  to have this as the only criterion. They don't usually switch parties because of gender or race. However, many are under the illusion that there isn't much of a difference between candidates of the same party; I am sure that some people don't realize how stark the contrast is between Clinton and Sanders, so they let themselves be swayed by the "vote for her, it's time for a woman" argument. Not that there's anything wrong with wanting to have a woman POTUS, since we have never had one, but really, do you want to vote based soley on that? That is the only reason I can think why people would chose someone whose policies are so inferior to Sanders'. $12 minimum wage? Really?

No one is voting for her simply because she is a woman unless they would also vote for Fiorina and Palin. They are women too, aren't they? The number of people I know who would vote for all three is zero.

And unless Sanders will implement a nationwide $15 minimum wage by executive order upon assuming office, there is no difference between him and Clinton on minimum wage.
29  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Primary Chuck Schumer? on: March 28, 2016, 02:18:47 pm
While researching the carried interest loophole debate, I came across this article which states comes just short of outright stating that Schumer is Wall Street's water carrier in Congress, and it seems nothing has changed since 2007. Now, if the Democrats retake the Senate, he's poised to be Senate Majority Leader. Is it too late to primary him? Why hasn't he faced a stronger progressive challenge in this heavily Democratic state?
30  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sanders campaign: Clinton won only states where we didn't compete on: March 28, 2016, 01:05:47 pm
I think that a lot of people are voting for Mrs. Clinton simply because she is a woman.
She has made that a campaign issue.

Yeah, I had to take down my Carly Fiorina sign before I could switch to Hillary /s
31  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: #BernieMadeMeWhite is now a top trending hashtag on FB and Twitter on: March 28, 2016, 12:55:53 pm
Well, it's true in a way. In Bernie Sanders' ideal world, everybody would be white.

An overreaction to some lazy journalism, whose larger point was still valid.

Wow. As a non-white born and raised in Hawai'i, it amazes me to what extent people will go to defend errant media. Gotta love our system of doing things...

What is "errant" media? Joe Republic said it was an overreaction, which seems true. I'll bet not many people read that little clip and concluded that Hawaii was white.
32  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Obama endorses DWS over primary challenger on: March 28, 2016, 12:45:09 pm
Excellent news for a classy woman!
33  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: LOL at the media on: March 28, 2016, 05:47:01 am
If there is something wrong with this quote, it would seem that it refers to Idaho and Alaska as a "liberal" electorate. Where's the outrage over that? Also, it over-reports Bernie's popular vote number in Hawaii and Alaska. This is just sloppy writing, not some conspiracy.

No, they are implying that Hawaii is white. You'd think they'd have the decency to not try to insinuate that the least white state (only 23% non Hispanic white) wasn't suddenly lily white once Bernie won it, but that myth that Bernie only wins whites had to be maintained.

Also non Hispanic whites in Alaska is below the nationwide average, and he won heavily Native areas with around 80% of the vote. And there were some heavily Hispanic counties in Washington that Bernie got 3/4ths of the vote in.

No one in America thinks Hawaii is white, and no one has said Bernie only wins whites. The fact is he has done a lot better with whites and much more poorly with minorities so far. And while he did win big in Hawaii, it was Hillary's best state of the night and a 6.5 point improvement for her over 2008. King County is the most diverse county in Washington, and she also over-performed there, getting 32.6% compared to 27.2% statewide.
34  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: LOL at the media on: March 28, 2016, 05:22:52 am
If there is something wrong with this quote, it would seem that it refers to Idaho and Alaska as a "liberal" electorate. Where's the outrage over that? Also, it over-reports Bernie's popular vote number in Hawaii and Alaska. This is just sloppy writing, not some conspiracy.
35  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why does Hillary Clinton tend to under-perform expectations? on: March 28, 2016, 04:14:34 am
Hillary's performance in General Elections has always been solid. She solidly won (Atlas says 55.27 to 43.01, which is over 12 points) what was supposed to be a competitive race in 2000, in a state that didn't have two Democrats in the Senate consistently until 1998. In 2006, she won a crushing 36-point victory, carrying all but four counties in conservative upstate.
36  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sanders campaign attacks Clinton for hosting fundraiser with Clooney on: March 28, 2016, 03:58:51 am
In order to revitalize the Democratic party/help American pols serve the interest of working folks rather than big donors, there needs to be 1) more political activity among regular folks 2) more knowledge of the corrupting influence of campaign finance among regular folks 3) a group of pols with the credibility to say that they are the solution to this problem.

This will take some time and courage and result in short-term losses, but in the long-term, it will be much better for America.

Why would it take "short-term losses"? Because opposing the corrupting influence of campaign finance is unpopular? I no more will believe this, than you will believe that Dukakis lost for not supporting crony capitalism. The party needs to stand for reform of the political finance system.

Your missed the most important part in your list of 3 solutions though: Actually fixing the problem! That will take a new set of laws that lay out a workable, sustainable and constitutional political finance system that can last long into the future, while largely neutralizing the disproportionate influence of the rich. In my view, elections should be publicly funded wholesale, with much lower cap s on donations (about $250), but with matched donations.
37  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Did a new Arab American Muslim Coalition give Sanders his upset win in MI? on: March 28, 2016, 12:27:41 am
Good article but only discusses substantive issues at the very end. I believe the Arab American population needs to make its voice heard to counterbalance AIPAC and the Israel lobby in Congress.

That being said, the fact that Arab Americans voted heavily for Bush in 2000 suggests they are culturally conservative, but switched parties to oppose neoconservatism. An anti-interventionist Republican candidate such as Trump could potentially make inroads into the community.

Uh, I highly doubt that Arab Americans have a high opinion of Trump...

Of course- a candidate with similar views to Trump on foreign policy but not Muslim immigrants.
38  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Did a new Arab American Muslim Coalition give Sanders his upset win in MI? on: March 27, 2016, 11:14:59 pm
Good article but only discusses substantive issues at the very end. I believe the Arab American population needs to make its voice heard to counterbalance AIPAC and the Israel lobby in Congress.

That being said, the fact that Arab Americans voted heavily for Bush in 2000 suggests they are culturally conservative, but switched parties to oppose neoconservatism. An anti-interventionist Republican candidate such as Trump could potentially make inroads into the community.
39  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Who will win the Wyoming caucuses (D)? on: March 27, 2016, 10:17:28 pm
Oh god. The Indiana primary in '08 was the worst political day of my life. Not only was it the real end for Hillary '08, Sarah Fisher's career nearly ended in a wreck, and Eight Belles being euthanized still all over the news. A few weeks later I logged onto see this diary at Daily Kos. Even if Bernie wins Indiana in a landslide it won't be as bad as that.
40  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why does Hillary Clinton tend to under-perform expectations? on: March 27, 2016, 08:45:17 pm
Because nobody listens to me.
41  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What Clinton should do when this is over. on: March 27, 2016, 08:42:52 pm
The cautious attitude towards polling is always better. Hence, Trump should assume the bad polls for him are indicative of the general, and Trump opponents should assume they are not.
42  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: What does the GOP need to change in order to win presidential elections? on: March 27, 2016, 02:19:03 pm
Nc Yankee should be put in charge of the RNC.
43  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Sanders wont commit to supporting Hillary. on: March 27, 2016, 12:35:42 pm
That's fine-- considering I just made a thread suggesting she shouldn't support him either, can hardly complain about this. It's pretty clear the relationship between the two is pretty bad. It's no problem because she can win without him and he can win without her. Neither one needs the other.
44  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Are you feeling the BERN yet? on: March 27, 2016, 01:24:57 am
I have no problem saying my candidate isn't perfect. In my experience it's Bernie "bots" who will respond to every criticism of him as if they've been personally insulted.

IceSpear - it doesn't happen nationally all at once (at least so far), but state by state. Since the campaign is the vehicle by which it happens, it makes sense that it doesn't happen where the campaign isn't present (like Mississippi). Compare Virginia (where he didn't campaign seriously) to North Carolina (where he did).

Beet do you support Clinton? You have her logo in your signature but you don't sound like you're backing her.

I support her, but I also analyze politics objectively, regardless of who I support. You would think that would be a praise-worthy trait, but it seems people don't like it.

For example just tonight, I posted a delegate projection with Sanders winning Hawaii 64-36. A "reasonable" (presumably) non-hysterical poster (Wulfric) posted his conventional prediction, in which he assumed Sanders would win Hawaii 60-40. The actual result, with 57% of precincts reporting, was 69.5% Sanders. So for overestimating my own candidate, and having a more accurate prediction, I'm somehow called a doom and gloomer who's "always wrong." The Atlas community just isn't sane.
45  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What Clinton should do when this is over. on: March 27, 2016, 12:44:51 am
Significant opposition? Lol. Your candidate is going to win. You have like 6 million primary votes and are already going off blathering about Gary Hart. Hillary Clinton already has more votes than Harry Truman yet will Bernie supporters acknowledge she has significant support when she loses? Of course not. It'll be all "we pulled off a miracle blah blah blah". Her support will never be acknowledged.
46  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Are you feeling the BERN yet? on: March 26, 2016, 11:36:04 pm
I have no problem saying my candidate isn't perfect. In my experience it's Bernie "bots" who will respond to every criticism of him as if they've been personally insulted.

IceSpear - it doesn't happen nationally all at once (at least so far), but state by state. Since the campaign is the vehicle by which it happens, it makes sense that it doesn't happen where the campaign isn't present (like Mississippi). Compare Virginia (where he didn't campaign seriously) to North Carolina (where he did).
47  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Are you feeling the BERN yet? on: March 26, 2016, 11:28:39 pm
Well of course you and I aren't going anywhere IceSpear, nor are thousands of her enthusiastic supporters. But millions of people out there who aren't strongly committed one way or another could be swayed. And there's enough of them out there to make the difference between a 20 point Clinton win and a 20 point Sanders win.

It's not momentum per se. As much as I support Clinton, I admit Bernie is running a better campaign. He's got a better message than her. And it's obvious. She's got huge obvious negatives in areas like trustworthiness that she doesn't even try to address. And when she doesn't even try to respond to those attacks, the path is open for Bernie supporters to claim that there is no good response. I mean, I can understand "I'm not a natural politician." We all have our foibles. But some of the stuff her campaign left on the table was just so blindingly obvious. She goes to AIPAC to denounce BDS and then claims she doesn't know why she's losing young people? The tin ear over there is astounding. And I don't claim to be any political genius either. I haven't set foot on a college campus for years, and even I know that's a loser.
48  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Are you feeling the BERN yet? on: March 26, 2016, 11:18:31 pm
People are making the mistake of thinking this is a World War I "trench warfare" style situation, because the 2008 Obama-Clinton primary was like that. The two candidates were so substantively similar, there wasn't much to campaign on that actually mattered. So you could predict how a state could vote just based on the percentage of demographics. Nate Silver originally exploited that opportunity to send his career into the stratosphere.

This tendency has unfortunately, been exacerbated by the first half of this year's primary. It again looks like trench warfare, but I'd argue that's illusory. It's only because Bernie Sanders started out so far behind, that when he makes a leap forward, and it shows up in certain demographics first, it looks like another demographic-based "trench warfare" primary. The underlying dynamic nature of the race is hidden.

That's why him winning PA, NJ and CA by big margins wouldn't be at all outlandish or surprising. When a candidate is winning, they're winning. John Kerry didn't need 50 primaries to beat Howard Dean. When Dean had his "scream", Kerry got the Big Mo and suddenly every state shifted huge to him. The same will happen when/if Bernie gets the Big Mo. Everything about his campaign suggests it's designed to give that to him.

In retrospect, it will be seen that Hillary's only hope was to have a 2008-style schedule, where almost all the big states like NY and CA voted in early February. Then Bernie's campaign wouldn't have had time to matter. DWS gave him too much time, and Hillary will have the DNC's schedule-makers to blame in part for her defeat. Her failure to shift sharply to the left like I suggested months ago is another part. The third part is unmentionable.
49  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What Clinton should do when this is over. on: March 26, 2016, 10:42:18 pm
I have NY as a tie-- 51-49 Clinton win.

In any case, one more data point, for the "Beet needs xanax" crowd Tongue :

50  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What Clinton should do when this is over. on: March 26, 2016, 09:55:31 pm
Okay- Since I am facing massive amounts of skepticism here, let us examine the race since Super Tuesday.

Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, Louisiana - less than 1 week after ST. They basically go as you would expect. Sanders does very well in Kansas and Maine especially, he does a little better than expected in LA and a little worse in NE.

Michigan, Mississippi- about exactly 1 week after ST. MS, Sanders did not campaign in, goes as you would expect. Michigan, he pulls off a 22-point defiance of the polls, the biggest upset in primary polling history.

ST 2: There are five states at stake here, which Sanders was initially down by as much as 30 points. Florida, 70% of the votes were already cast. So he's scrambling to replicate his Michigan upset (the biggest in primary history) in 5 states, within just the space of 1 week. IMO, he pulled off about 2 1/2 (Illinois, North Carolina, and the 1/2 is Missouri). Florida was never on the map because of the early vote.

Since ST 2: 5-6 Sanders, 6-6 if you count election day voting in Arizona. Crucially, he has gone from underperforming Obama's 2008 performance in caucuses to overperforming in them. The man is a campaigning dynamo.

IceSpear- here is my state by state projection:
http://DemRace.com/?share=3wuCFNt1
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 661


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines